Argument165 G-89-互助社-8.3日同主题作文！欢迎互拍！

tuesday420UID: 202475

165The following appeared in a business magazine.
'As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.'


The speaker's statement seems plausible at the first glance and the Promofoods' tuna cans are inculpable for the consumer's complaints. However, a further thinking will break this specious judgment easily, of which I will discussed below.

At the beginning, the test of Promofoods is based on the samples of the recalled cans. But they didn't mention how they sample. Is the sampling method scientifically? How many samples did they take? All these determinants to a scientific sample haven't been provided. From the point of statistics and mathematics, a rational sample should be based on the randomicity and universality, say, the samples should be selected randomly and the sample amount should be enough to represent the whole. To imagine, if the Promofoods just pick the first one thousand cans as the samples and haphazardly these samples are not contained the detrimental chemicals, the result can hardly to be convincing. Or, they just choose one hundred cans as the sample, we can easily conclude they are innocent? I am afraid the answer is no.

Meanwhile, the chemists of Promofoods claimed that the remaining suspected chemical are alsl found in all other kinds of canned foods. I want to remind these chemists that the chemicals in the other kinds of cans are safe doesn't mean they also will be safe in the Promofoods'. Maybe the other companies used a certain technology to reduce the human reaction to these chemicals. Or, the content of these chemicals in the other companies' cans are minor enough to be absorbed or decomposed by human body, while the ratio is extraordinarily high in the Promofoods'. Thus, the chemists should not regard the three remaining chemicals are not deleterious to the human body. The further test on how many amount of chemicals are contained in the Promofoods' cans should be processed and the accurate number deserves to be publicized.

However, I think the most significant doubtful point is that the Promofoods used their own chemists to sample and test. Regardless the possible cheat or fraud during this process, as a accountable company, Promofoods should invite the third-party organization or company to manifest the whole test process, or at least to supervise. It is reasonable to imagine that the own company's chemist tends to or even be forced to make a conclusion toward the company to maintain its interest. So, even the other two defects above are rectified, the company also can’t make the conclusion without satisfying this fundamental point.

In sum, the speaker’s statement is vulnerable and lack of foundation. To be a food company, the consumer’s health is the prerequisite before make profit. Before a convinced conclusion is made out, Promofoods better off change the test team and retest.


严重超时阿，哎。。。。。。  :(

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

占位　　晚点帮你看：）

fishjoyUID: 2116013

占位，明天看，今天太累了:)

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

原来我是占的这个位阿
楼主我们挺有缘的阿嗄
明天帮你拍！！

fishjoyUID: 2116013

The speaker's statement seems plausible at the first glance and the Promofoods' tuna cans are inculpable for the consumer's complaints. However, a further thinking will break this specious judgment easily, of which I will discussed below.

At the beginning, the test of Promofoods is based on the samples of the recalled cans. But they didn't mention how they sample. Is the sampling method scientifically? How many samples did they take? 应该改为用陈述的语气叙述All these determinants to a scientific sample haven't been provided. From the point of statistics and mathematics, a rational sample should be based on the randomicity and universality, say, the samples should be selected randomly and the sample amount should be enough to represent the whole. To imagine, if the Promofoods just pick the first one thousand cans as the samples and haphazardly these samples are not contained the detrimental chemicals, the result can hardly to be convincing. Or, they just choose one hundred cans as the sample, we can easily conclude they are innocent? I am afraid the answer is no.

Meanwhile, the chemists of Promofoods claimed that the remaining suspected chemical are alsl found in all other kinds of canned foods. I want to remind these chemists that the chemicals in the other kinds of cans are safe doesn't mean they also will be safe in the Promofoods'. Maybe the other companies used a certain technology to reduce the human reaction to these chemicals. Or, the content of these chemicals in the other companies' cans are minor enough to be absorbed or decomposed by human body, while the ratio is extraordinarily high in the Promofoods'. Thus, the chemists should not regard the three remaining chemicals are not deleterious to the human body. The further test on how many amount of chemicals are contained in the Promofoods' cans should be processed and the accurate number deserves to be publicized.

However, I think the most significant doubtful point is that the Promofoods used their own chemists to sample and test. Regardless the possible cheat or fraud during this process, as a accountable company, Promofoods should invite the third-party organization or company to manifest the whole test process, or at least to supervise. It is reasonable to imagine that the own company's chemist tends to or even be forced to make a conclusion toward the company to maintain its interest. So, even the other two defects above are rectified, the company also can’t make the conclusion without satisfying this fundamental point.

In sum, the speaker’s statement is vulnerable and lack of foundation. To be a food company, the consumer’s health is the prerequisite before make profit. Before a convinced conclusion is made out, Promofoods better off change the test team and retest.
还有其他的逻辑错误要是没时间写也要捎带提一下。错误比结尾更重要。语言方面太多简单句，不简洁，无气势。